NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070614/photos_wl_afp/55b76412c3378ad5a2efaeadef825df2

http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=22047

100,000,000 people in one century, or 1,000,000 per year. 2,740 per day. 114 per hour. Almost two killed each minute - and that is a conservative estimate. It does not even count the pain, starvation and suffering of the billions of other victims. Stalin said that the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions a statistic. The waste of so many lives in a futile attempt at proving an obviously flawed social theory can only be understated by any memorial gesture, no matter how grand.

The treasure of the common good being superior to the individual tuned out to be as many predicted; fools gold.

The horrible results are denied even today by many - most of whom are very distant from the death camps and chaos where communist 'fairness' was inflicted. "It wasnt really communist" , "It wasn’t pure communism" and my favorite "It wasn't given enough time!". All evidence that there are still plenty of people who would jump at the chance to re-learn the lessons of the past - no matter what the cost. Apparently the the 'statistics' Stalin spoke of are just to large and unfathomable for them to grasp. Instead they warp their minds with vain attempts at camouflaging their ignorance of the suffering communism has caused with far stretched moral equivalencies and creative rationalizations. Many people still get seduced by the same lies told a century ago. They are seductive lies - but lies all the same.

Pause for one minute. Think of two people who you love, then give thanks to whatever powers you believe in that they are not among the two people per minute who died last century in the name of communism - pray that those few still living under communism find freedom, and that it soon perishes from practice completely - only to be found in the history texts as a cautionary tale about the value of eternal vigilance.

So is an ictim like five less than a victim?

I think we should let credit fall where credit is due. Communism did not murder anyone. Your standard communist has not murdered anyone. It's more like the victims of Stalin, Lenin, and several others.

and then we look at the "ictims" of capitalism...

Well, considering that Stalinist Russia and Mao's China weren't Communist nations, but were autocratic dictators that used a rather twisted version of Communism as a cover for their activities, your entire OP fails in it's mass strawman argument.

And I'm not even a Communist...

Oh boy...you have no idea what you are letting yourself in for....

I like the cut of yer jip.

Just a note: The USSR wasn't communist in the traditional sense (usually an anarchic paradise where all men are equal). Despite borrowing the terminology, it just wasn't. It was more of socialism gone awry in the sense most communists think in. So trying to say the USSR proves that communism sucks is made of phail before it even begins.

Funny. I could say the exact same thing about capitalism and the military coup in 1964 that Brazil underwent in its name. Unless your point is "every system is flawed", you have no point. For that matter, have you ever studied anything about communism?

So is an ictim like five less than a victim?

ROFLMAO! THAT is FUNNY!

I already submitted in moderation for a correction.

Thanks for the laugh though.

Funny. I could say the exact same thing about capitalism and the military coup in 1964 that Brazil underwent in its name. Unless your point is "every system is flawed", you have no point. For that matter, have you ever studied anything about communism?

Communism tends to be the biggest fuck up of them all though.

Just a note: The USSR wasn't communist in the traditional sense (usually an anarchic paradise where all men are equal). Despite borrowing the terminology, it just wasn't. It was more of socialism gone awry in the sense most communists think in. So trying to say the USSR proves that communism sucks is made of phail before it even begins.

Funny. I could say the exact same thing about capitalism and the military coup in 1964 that Brazil underwent in its name. Unless your point is "every system is flawed", you have no point. For that matter, have you ever studied anything about communism?

Two perfect examples of the denials I mentioned before. Thanks for your contribution.

Funny. I could say the exact same thing about capitalism and the military coup in 1964 that Brazil underwent in its name. Unless your point is "every system is flawed", you have no point. For that matter, have you ever studied anything about communism?

And an example of the strectehed moral equivalency and creative rationalization I described too. All in just one page! Wondeful!

edit
It's highly arguable, but I WILL be glad to ask for a memorial for the victims of the South American dictatorships set up by the US in the name of capitalism, if this idea keeps up.

make that TWO! You GO!

It's highly arguable, but I WILL be glad to ask for a memorial for the victims of the South American dictatorships set up by the US in the name of capitalism, if this idea keeps up.

In the name of capitalism sure, but not actual capitalism.

Communism tends to be the biggest fuck up of them all though.

It's highly arguable, but I WILL be glad to ask for a memorial for the victims of the South American dictatorships set up by the US in the name of capitalism, if this idea keeps up.

I find it incredible what amazing speed readers you all are! I can't believe how quickly you read the linked article and my post!

Simply amazing!

Two perfect examples of the denials I mentioned before. Thanks for your contribution.

No, I'm not disputing anything. I'm asking for the same consideration YOU are asking for, regarding the, yes, VICTIMS OF CAPITALISM.

We already have memorials for the victims of communism here. They are called graveyards.

Graveyards are boring.

Two perfect examples of the denials I mentioned before. Thanks for your contribution.

so by your logic the Soviet Union was a true workers paradise, with no government and a gift based society :confused:

And an example of the strectehed moral equivalency and creative rationalization I described too. All in just one page! Wondeful!

Is the victim of Brazil, 1964, any less worthy than the victim of Russia, 1918?

Two perfect examples of the denials I mentioned before. Thanks for your contribution.

Look, before you start accusing anyone of being in a state of denail, have you read anything about Marxism or Communism - in depth analysis? Even if you've only read a little, surely you must realise that the use of 'Communism' in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China was merely a wafer-thin subtext for the use of brutal force by two autocratic dictators? The same as 'National Socialism's' proclomations were just a thin subtext for outright racism, anti-semitism and state control.

So is an ictim like five less than a victim?

Can I say "You Win This Thread"

Please? It would be my first time:p

We already have memorials for the victims of communism here. They are called graveyards.

Which would mean... Only capitalists get to use the "not actual" excuse?

Yeah, that sounds good. I like the cut of yer jip!

No, I'm not disputing anything. I'm asking for the same consideration YOU are asking for, regarding the, yes, VICTIMS OF CAPITALISM.

Show me the re-education camps, the gulags, the mass death sentences handed out by any government which defined itself under the terms 'capitalist" and you have a point. Otherwise you are just another peddler of deceit and lies.

In the name of capitalism sure, but not actual capitalism.

Which would mean... Only capitalists get to use the "not actual" excuse?

Can I say "You Win This Thread"

Please? It would be my first time:p

I would say he at least gets V points - or maybe even X.

Show me the re-education camps, the gulags, the mass death sentences handed out by any government which defined itself under the terms 'capitalist" and you have a point. Otherwise you are just another peddler of deceit and lies.

Seriously dude. Stalinist Russia/Mao's China were not Communist in any way. It was just a wafer-thin subtext for autocratic dictatorships and oppression, the same as any extremist dictatorship.

I like the cut of yer jip.

What's a jib?

Well, considering that Stalinist Russia and Mao's China weren't Communist nations, but were autocratic dictators that used a rather twisted version of Communism as a cover for their activities, your entire OP fails in it's mass strawman argument.

And I'm not even a Communist...

QFT.

I find it incredible what amazing speed readers you all are! I can't believe how quickly you read the linked article and my post!

Simply amazing!

Just saying "oh, people will deny my post" isn't actually evidence that these people are wrong. What evidence do you have that Stalin's USSR and Mao's China actually were the proper fulfilment of communist theory? Because they weren't.

@OP: What's your point? Authoritarian Communism failed. Miserably. We know. There are still dozens of other communist, socialist, communitarian, and collectivist systems other than authoritarian communism. We will continue to debate their merits and shortcomings, whether you like it or not.

Seriously dude. Stalinist Russia/Mao's China were not Communist in any way. It was just a wafer-thin subtext for autocratic dictatorships and oppression, the same as any extremist dictatorship.

It was very communist ecenomically. There is no such thing as a communist social policy, thats why theres all sorts of different types, from authoritarian communism to anarcho communism.

Show me the re-education camps, the gulags, the mass death sentences handed out by any government which defined itself under the terms 'capitalist" and you have a point. Otherwise you are just another peddler of deceit and lies.

Brazil exported torture technology from 1964 and on. The government tortured people. And you aren't assigning these people the same value because they were tortured in the name of capitalism.

What's a jib?


Dunno, I just like that phrase.

@OP: What's your point? Authoritarian Communism failed. Miserably. We know. There are still dozens of other communist, socialist, communitarian, and collectivist systems other than authoritarian communism. We will continue to debate their merits and shortcomings, whether you like it or not.

My point is the same as that of the memorial.

You stretch and stretch but still can't make the connection. Sorry. You lose.

You want a memorial to the victims of communist dictatorships. I want a memorial to the victims of capitalist dictatorships. I don't want to deny your memorial. You want to deny mine. Because you don't assign any value to the victims of capitalist dictatorships.

You stretch and stretch but still can't make the connection. Sorry. You lose.

Will you continue to ignore the point made by several people? That Stalinisr Russia and Maoist China were not Communist nations, but merely autocratic dictatorships that merely used a perverted idea of 'Communism' as an excuse; 'the fig-leaf covering the nakedness of autocracry' to take a phrase referring to Bismarckian Germany.

Brazil exported torture technology from 1964 and on. The government tortured people. And you aren't assigning these people the same value because they were tortured in the name of capitalism.

You stretch and stretch but still can't make the connection. Sorry. You lose.

My point is the same as that of the memorial.

The same memorial you want to deny victims of the South American dictatorships. Because, in your mind, since they aren't the victims of communists, they aren't victims.

its a stupid waste of land and money to have a victims of communism memorial in the united states.

such a memorial belongs in prague or warsaw or moscow, not washington dc.

its a stupid waste of land and money to have a victims of communism memorial in the united states.

such a memorial belongs in prague or warsaw or moscow, not washington dc.

But the USA has plently of land and money. It's also good propaganda.

But the USA has plently of land and money. It's also good propaganda.

Why do I get the feeling this is some oblique jab at Putin by the US government?

its a stupid waste of land and money to have a victims of communism memorial in the united states.

such a memorial belongs in prague or warsaw or moscow, not washington dc.

Agreed. There are enough homegrown causes the US can erect memorials for, and enough deaths caused by its own society and government.
Communism memorials should be erected in former communist countries, if anywhere.

Look, before you start accusing anyone of being in a state of denail, have you read anything about Marxism or Communism - in depth analysis? Even if you've only read a little, surely you must realise that the use of 'Communism' in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China was merely a wafer-thin subtext for the use of brutal force by two autocratic dictators? The same as 'National Socialism's' proclomations were just a thin subtext for outright racism, anti-semitism and state control.


Which two? Lenin? Stalin? Khrushchev? Mao Zedong? Hua Guofeng? Kim Jong-il? Kim Il-sung? Fidel Castro?

Really - there are so many to choose from you need to be more specific.

If you actually understood anything which you have read then you'd grasp the absurdity of the last two words in your post.

Have you actually read any of the critisisms of communism? In depth analysis? Only a little then you would know that the 'thin subtext' will ALWAYS be the result of communism you speak of.

Don't be so easily seduced.

Why do I get the feeling this is some oblique jab at Putin by the US government?

Putin being mad is good for the USA. So it makes sense.

Dunno, I just like that phrase.

Never mind, I thought we were going to get a Simpsons-quoting rapport going.

Announcer: Attention on deck! Captain Tenille wishes to address you!
Tenille: [clears throat] I'm a man of few words. [pause] Any questions?
Homer: Uh, is the poop deck really what I think it is?
Tenille: [laughs] I like the cut of your jib.
Homer: What's a jib?
Tenille: [laughs, then speaks to announcer] Promote that man.

Which two? Lenin? Stalin? Khrushchev? Mao Zedong? Hua Guofeng? Kim Jong-il? Kim Il-sung? Fidel Castro?

Really - there are so many to choose from you need to be more specific.

If you actually understood anything which you have read then you'd grasp the absurdity of the last two words in your post.

Have you actually read any of the critisisms of communism? In depth analysis? Only a little then you would know that the 'thin subtext' will ALWAYS be the result of communism you speak of.

Don't be so easily seduced.

Oh, joy.

I was referring to the two dictators as they were the two that most think of when 'Communist Dictatorships' are referred to. Of course there were more. And indeed, I have read into some detail of the criticism of the main dictatorships that utilised 'Communism' as a pretext for dictatorships. Many of those same criticisms should show you that none of these states were indeed Communist, or anything near them.

As Hydesland has helpfuly pointed out, Leninist/Stalinist/'Communist' Russia had a stylised Communist economy, but the USSR had nothing else that was even vaguely based on Communism or the works of Marx; the same can be said of any of the other dictatorships. There was no equality, no true Communist/Marxist government, no democratic process; not even the Dumas created by the Tsars before the Revolution.

None of these countries were (Or, in the case of North Korea and China, still are) Communist. They were/are all dictatorships that have utilised a perverted ideal of Communism to gain power at the expense of the proletariat, then kept said power without any democratic reform whilst utilizing an extremely effective propaganda system to play on this perverted ideal of Communism; because, the truth is, of course, that the ideals of Communism are very easy to utilize and manipulate to gain support. Ideas of equality, fraternity and justice for all are easy to use to gain power, and even easier to keep using as a pretext for retaining power and disposing of those who would seek to end that power.

The same memorial you want to deny victims of the South American dictatorships. Because, in your mind, since they aren't the victims of communists, they aren't victims.

Whoa! nice False Dichotomy!

Whoa! nice False Dichotomy!

I'm not defending communism here. I'm asking you a simple question: Do you or do you not accept that the victims of Castelo Branco, Médici, Geisel and Figueiredo are entitled to a memorial just like the victims of Stalin?

Oh, joy.

I was referring to the two dictators as they were the two that most think of when 'Communist Dictatorships' are referred to. Of course there were more. And indeed, I have read into some detail of the criticism of the main dictatorships that utilised 'Communism' as a pretext for dictatorships. Many of those same criticisms should show you that none of these states were indeed Communist, or anything near them.

As Hydesland has helpfuly pointed out, Leninist/Stalinist/'Communist' Russia had a stylised Communist economy, but the USSR had nothing else that was even vaguely based on Communism or the works of Marx; the same can be said of any of the other dictatorships. There was no equality, no true Communist/Marxist government, no democratic process; not even the Dumas created by the Tsars before the Revolution.

None of these countries were (Or, in the case of North Korea and China, still are) Communist. They were/are all dictatorships that have utilised a perverted ideal of Communism to gain power at the expense of the proletariat, then kept said power without any democratic reform whilst utilizing an extremely effective propaganda system to play on this perverted ideal of Communism; because, the truth is, of course, that the ideals of Communism are very easy to utilize and manipulate to gain support. Ideas of equality, fraternity and justice for all are easy to use to gain power, and even easier to keep using as a pretext for retaining power and disposing of those who would seek to end that power.


Ah yes - the denial argument. No winning that one!

You are using the first two fallacies I shared; "It wasnt really communist" , "It wasn’t pure communism". Some call it Reductio Ad Absurdum, others; Moving the Goalpost. Either way there is no arguing against fallacy.

Regardless of your over-definition of the term - the crimes were all done under the goal of communism and commuinism provided the perfect vehicle for commiting them.

and then we look at the "ictims" of capitalism...

Much as this disturbs me, I was thinking the same. In fact, isn't there a fucked up continent south of Europe that serves as a memorial to capitalism?

Much as this disturbs me, I was thinking the same. In fact, isn't there a fucked up continent south of Europe that serves as a memorial to capitalism?

As I said in an earlier post - show me the reeducation camps, the gulags, the mass death sentenced carried out by any government defining itself under the term 'capitalism' and you have a valid point. Otherwise it is ninsensical musing and a poor attempt at moral equivalencies and creative rationalizations - as I mentioned in post #1.

Much as this disturbs me, I was thinking the same. In fact, isn't there a fucked up continent south of Europe that serves as a memorial to capitalism?
Since when has Africa been capitalist?? They have been raped by imperialism but calling imperialism and capitalism the same thing is false considering that one is an economic system and the other is a foreign policy goal. The very ideology that promoted these aims was not very capitalistic from the start but rather nationalistic.

As I said in an earlier post - show me the reeducation camps, the gulags, the mass death sentenced carried out by any government defining itself under the term 'capitalism' and you have a valid point. Otherwise it is ninsensical musing and a poor attempt at moral equivalencies and creative rationalizations - as I mentioned in post #1.

I'm not in favor of communism as it's been tried. I'm not in favor of capitalism as it's been tried either.

That said:

I will answer every post of yours with this question until you answer it: Do you or do you not accept that the victims of Castelo Branco, Médici, Geisel and Figueiredo are entitled to a memorial just like the victims of Stalin?

I'm not defending communism here. I'm asking you a simple question: Do you or do you not accept that the victims of Castelo Branco, Médici, Geisel and Figueiredo are entitled to a memorial just like the victims of Stalin?

I don't think they deserve a memorial just like those of COMMUNISM (read- not just Stalin) I also don't think they deserve one like the twin towers. No do they deserve one like Vietnam.

It is not even up to me to determine if they are victims at all or if they even deserve a memorial ; it is up to the citizens of Brazil.

Were it a global travesty then maybe I would be entitled - otherwise it is an issue solely for the discretion of the people of Brazil.

Now - go spam somewhere else.

I'm gonna go get some dinner. G'night.

Ah yes - the denial argument. No winning that one!

You are using the first two fallacies I shared; "It wasnt really communist" , "It wasn’t pure communism". Some call it Reductio Ad Absurdum, others; Moving the Goalpost. Either way there is no arguing against fallacy.

Regardless of your over-definition of the term - the crimes were all done under the goal of communism and commuinism provided the perfect vehicle for commiting them.

I am hardly in denial. I am patiently explaining that a perverted form of Communist theory was used by these dictatorships to rule; just as a perverted form of Darwinism was used by the Nazi Party to rule Nazi Germany, for example.

I am not denying anything. Neither am I trying to defend Communism, really. I see it as a rather quaint theory that could never truly be used above the level of a commune for various reasons. However, as a historian - albeit not one particularly of the period - it pains me that such arguments are still made. In no way can it be said that these nations used Communist theories in any recognisable way, just as it cannot be claimed that the Nazis used the ideal of Darwinism in any recognisable form.

These governments merely used a very easily manipulated theory to justify their brutal and autocratic rule; that is the truth here.

As I said in an earlier post - show me the reeducation camps, the gulags, the mass death sentenced carried out by any government defining itself under the term 'capitalism' and you have a valid point. Otherwise it is ninsensical musing and a poor attempt at moral equivalencies and creative rationalizations - as I mentioned in post #1.Show us where the reeducation camps, gulags, and mass death sentences are found within the definition of communism.

I don't think they deserve a memorial just like those of COMMUNISM (read- not ust Stalin) I also don't think they deserve one like the twin towers. No do they deserve one like Vienam.

It is not even up to me to determine if they are victims at all or if they even deserve a menorial ; it is up to the citizens of Brazil.

Were it a global travesty then maybe I would be entitled - otherwise it is an issue solely for the discretion of the people of Brasil.

Now - go spam somewhere else.

It's not up to you to determine who are the victims of communism either.

And I will only leave when I wish to leave.

As I said in an earlier post - show me the reeducation camps, the gulags, the mass death sentenced carried out by any government defining itself under the term 'capitalism' and you have a valid point. Otherwise it is ninsensical musing and a poor attempt at moral equivalencies and creative rationalizations - as I mentioned in post #1.

One might note the moral dichotomy between capitalism and communism; capitalism accepts inequalities, and, for that matter poverty, in the interests of those likely to profit from economic exploitation. By contrast, the fundamental moral tenet of communism is that of equality, both of oppurtnity and possession. The relative moral merits of the two appear rather different to what you describe.

Moreover, though one cannot deny the veracity of the rather tedious and expected reference to Gulags and the like, one can raise numerous objections to the rather crude associations with communism you thus make; firstly, gulags and their type are not the aim of communism, nor, for that matter, does Marx extol their values. Secondly, the states you refer to are by no means communist in any sense beyond the vaguely nominal. Thirdly, though the resultant deaths caused by capitalism are indirect, as opposed to intentional, the fact stands that the west has the capacity to preclude them, and does not. Hence, your aspiration to moral superiority is flawed.

Now, I assume you are an American, thus; do you support the actions of the USA fully? Including Guantanamo Bay, the transgressions of the CIA, the general cowpat that is Iraq, and many other such actions commensurate in nature to the gulags you refer to, all in the name of freedom and capitalism?

I am hardly in denial. I am patiently explaining that a perverted form of Communist theory was used by these dictatorships to rule; just as a perverted form of Darwinism was used by the Nazi Party to rule Nazi Germany, for example.

I am not denying anything. Neither am I trying to defend Communism, really. I see it as a rather quaint theory that could never truly be used above the level of a commune for various reasons. However, as a historian - albeit not one particularly of the period - it pains me that such arguments are still made. In no way can it be said that these nations used Communist theories in any recognisable way, just as it cannot be claimed that the Nazis used the ideal of Darwinism in any recognisable form.

These governments merely used a very easily manipulated theory to justify their brutal and autocratic rule; that is the truth here.

I think I disagree with this, because I do see communism as the culprit here. If you look at the early communists, for instance Lenin and Stalin before they ruled Russia, their ideas were pretty sound (albeit not pragmatically). Stalin was actaully pretty decent as well, but that all changed as soon as they gained power. Communism gives far too much power to the state (except maybe for anarcho communism), and I see that as too easy to abuse. Their seems to be a patturn all over the globe with this, it seems to have happened everytime a group of new enlightened radicals crop up and revolt. It's not communism itself that is the most dangerous though, it's this Marxist idea that they are completely and utterly right and anyone who disagrees are "betrayers of the revolution" and therefore it is justified to eliminate them etc... This bullshit happens in Religion like this, and thats what fucks over the country.

Since when has Africa been capitalist?? They have been raped by imperialism but calling imperialism and capitalism the same thing is false considering that one is an economic system and the other is a foreign policy goal. The very ideology that promoted these aims was not very capitalistic from the start but rather nationalistic.

I do wish I could see the world through that naive, simplistic oculus that seems endemic to the likes of you. It must be pleasant.

What, incidentally, was Imperialism motivated by, and what did it result from? In short, an imperative upon the part of the western powers to solidify trading networks in the new world, Asia and Africa into somethig rather more substantive, from which to gain the prosperity to surpass their contemporaries. The imperative to increase profitability and economic stability, by means of the exploitation of others, is a fundamentally capitalist notion.

Communism gives far too much power to the state (except maybe for anarcho communism),In communism, there is no state.

I do wish I could see the world through that naive, simplistic oculus that seems endemic to the likes of you. It must be pleasant.

What, incidentally, was Imperialism motivated by, and what did it result from? In short, an imperative upon the part of the western powers to solidify trading networks in the new world, Asia and Africa into somethig rather more substantive, from which to gain the prosperity to surpass their contemporaries. The imperative to increase profitability and economic stability, by means of the exploitation of others, is a fundamentally capitalist notion.

To be fair, a lot of Africa and Asia were pretty fucked up before imperialism. And many of the heavily colonised countries seem to be better off now then they were before.

In communism, there is no state.

Thats anarchism. Communism has no inherent removal or support for the state.

LONG LIVE COMMUNISM!

Mate, these people died from oppressive regimes, NOT Communism.

LONG LIVE COMMUNISM!

Mate, these people died from oppressive regimes, NOT Communism.

Capitalism pwns Communism.

Thats anarchism. Communism has no inherent removal or support for the state.Nope. Socialism has no inherent removal or support for the state.
Communism is a form of anarchism.

What, incidentally, was Imperialism motivated by, and what did it result from? In short, an imperative upon the part of the western powers to solidify trading networks in the new world, Asia and Africa into somethig rather more substantive, from which to gain the prosperity to surpass their contemporaries. The imperative to increase profitability and economic stability, by means of the exploitation of others, is a fundamentally capitalist notion.
Hmm, no, capitalism is based on the idea of private ownership. The imperialistic "ideals" of the 15-18th century European governments were to increase the wealth of the mother country and allow it to be self-sufficient. While these conditions allowed capitalism to flourish they were not the direct result of it. As for the 19th century colonization of Africa, that was based almost entirely on greed. Again, something that helps capitalism, but is not a "fundamentally capitalist notion". If they really capitalist fanatics, the English would have allowed their colonies to trade with other countries.

Nope. Socialism has no inherent removal or support for the state.
Communism is a form of anarchism.

No, Communism is a form of Socialism. Marx may not have been fond of the state (although the alternative was pretty much the same), but Marxism =/= Communism.

To be fair, a lot of Africa and Asia were pretty fucked up before imperialism. And many of the heavily colonised countries seem to be better off now then they were before.

Perhaps in the case of the sub-continent, but few African states are in a better state now than prior to colonialism.

Equally, the extent to which pre-colonial states were fucked up is irrelevant. They were, for the most part, more fucked up post-colonialism.

Perhaps in the case of the sub-continent, but few African states are in a better state now than prior to colonialism.

Equally, the extent to which pre-colonial states were fucked up is irrelevant. They were, for the most part, more fucked up post-colonialism.

Hmmm maybe. I don't think there is enough known about pre colonial Africa to be sure.

No, Communism is a form of Socialism. Marx may not have been fond of the state (although the alternative was pretty much the same), but Marxism =/= Communism.
From what I understand, Marx felt that real Communism was the result of an evolution. He had Hegelian ideas about history, and thought that after years of class struggle, the bourgeoisie were creating their own downfall, in the form of the proletariat. Eventually, the proletariats would rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie. Then there would be a period where there was still a government (like what Soviet Russia was supposed to be) that would "de-class" everyone and prepare for the stateless world of Communism.

No, Communism is a form of Socialism. Marx may not have been fond of the state (although the alternative was pretty much the same), but Marxism =/= Communism.Certainly. Marx wasn't the only one who defined communism as being stateless.

From what I understand, Marx felt that real Communism was the result of an evolution. He had Hegelian ideas about history, and thought that after years of class struggle, the bourgeoisie were creating their own downfall, in the form of the proletariat. Eventually, the proletariats would rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie. Then there would be a period where there was still a government (like what Soviet Russia was supposed to be) that would "de-class" everyone and prepare for the stateless world of Communism.

Yup, if Marx had control over the Russian revolution, the USSR would have remained capitalist for a long time untill a large, rich and corrupt bourgeoisie could be formed and a new revolution taken place by the workers. Lenin disagreed with Marx on many levels, he thought that there was no time for Russia to go through capitalism and there should be an immediate jump to communism.

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/300W/images3.deviantart.com/i/2004/111/0/e/Don__t_feed_the_Troll.jpg

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/300W/images3.deviantart.com/i/2004/111/0/e/Don__t_feed_the_Troll.jpg

I didn't realise that NSG was so radical that even anyone who disagrees with communism is now a troll :rolleyes:

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/300W/images3.deviantart.com/i/2004/111/0/e/Don__t_feed_the_Troll.jpg
Who's trolling?

Certainly. Marx wasn't the only one who defined communism as being stateless.

Whatever you want to call it, unless you are an anarcho communist, chances are you'll probably favour some form of centralised control.

Who's trolling?

Well...

Memorial for victims of communism

...Is kinda trollish IMO

what about the victims of Capitalism or any other -ism

To the OP: What people are trying to explain to you is that the USSR and CommChina are 'communist' like Green Day and Simple Plan are punk.

Why don't just have a memorial for everyone who died unjustly ever? :rolleyes:

Well, considering that Stalinist Russia and Mao's China weren't Communist nations, but were autocratic dictators that used a rather twisted version of Communism as a cover for their activities, your entire OP fails in it's mass strawman argument.
It's not, and here's why:

Marx and Engels wrote that there would be a revolution, after which there would be a dictatorship of the proletariat. That's pretty clear and pretty well-known. I can't say I've read them that extensively to know how much of the organisations in those two countries were Marxist, Leninist or Stalinist, but it's not important.

The thing is that after this dictatorship of the proletariat was achieved, they wrote that there would be some form of socialism, in which the government would distribute the vast amounts of resources produced (thanks to both capitalism having built up productive capacity to the point where scarcity has been almost eliminated and the workers now being more motivated and using the machines in a superior way) according to what people needed.

As scarcity completely fades away, the need for this distributing government disappears too and so it fades away until you have that utopian communism in which everyone does what they want, more or less.

That's pretty much the theory behind it.

Many of the crimes associated with communism throughout the 20th century were a direct result of this. And here's how:

When the revolution succeeded in 1917, Lenin immediately recognised that there'd been a mistake. Marx had said that capitalism would collapse after it had been become so successful that it just couldn't sustain itself anymore. There'd be worldwide capitalism, huge amounts of productive capacity chasing fewer and fewer customers and leaving more and more poor workers in its wake. In Russia this clearly wasn't the case - the place had barely left feudalism!

Lenin's answer (maybe the best one a commie's come up with when actually confronted with this problem in practice) was to allow a little bit of capitalism to build up the nation's productive capacity to the point where socialism might really kick off.

On a side note, Trotsky's answer was to start revolutions everywhere else to safeguard the worker's dictatorship worldwide and then start figuring out how to make it work.

Lenin died unfortunately and his successor was not only a power-hungry maniac, but also not in the mood for waiting. So he figured he could build up the nation's productive capacity through a planned economy (including lots of collectivisation) and massive projects (like the electrification). The people who died for that (or resisted and were gotten rid off) died to make Marxism work. Of course in Stalin's case there was later his madness and paranoia kicking in as well, which had little to do with Marx, so here you can only blame a fraction of the deaths on Marx.

In Mao's case on the other hand the link is even more obvious. Most of Mao's victims died because of the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution. The former was a pretty obvious attempt to face the same problem: getting around the fact that capitalism in China had barely existed, so there was no productive capacity to speak of to keep the historical laws going.

The Cultural Revolution was the result of the idea that you could get past the contradiction in Marxism (control creates freedom) by creating a new man. The Soviets did it as well, but in Mao's and Pol Pot's case it was even more obvious. The idea was that by severing all ties with the past you could speed up the process.

I must admit I never read any Pol Pot so I don't know whether he also intended to just go straight from this proto-capitalism to utopian communism by just destroying the cities and living in the countryside.

So all the great experiments that killed so many people were basically the fault of Marx and Engels for having made a mistake - they said they were predicting history (which is of course just the result of economic pressures which can be forecast), gave people ideas but then ended up not giving out the necessary details, leaving men with sometimes questionable qualifications to figure things out by themselves (and coupled with the Marxist mindset of historical dialectics and the individual being just a unit in a much bigger game that was a dangerous thing). They predicted (and pushed for) a revolution but didn't spend enough time thinking about the aftermath. Their actions (writing the Manifesto, attending rallies, inspiring insurrections and uprisings) contradicted their writing (which clearly pointed out that the world wasn't ready for a revolution).

So don't blame Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot without acknowledging that these men (however insane and murderous) were just trying to answer a question Marx and Engels had asked of them.

And as a final note, according to this analysis maybe today's China hasn't given up on communism either...maybe some smart guys (Deng Xiaoping comes to mind) just realised that you're not going to move towards communism without the productive capacity that capitalism was meant to be creating. Of course today that movement has acquired a life of its own and I don't think the ideologues could stop it once they think China's "ready".

Why don't just have a memorial for everyone who died unjustly ever? :rolleyes:

Shh! Don't you know the only people that ever die or suffer unjustly are those killed by communists?

crusadesdictatorshipswitchhuntsnazismwarsimperialismslaveryassassinationssacrificesmyspacebarbroke

Are you people kidding me?!

I am a Marxist-Leninist who feels guilty about atrocities committed in the name of Communism. I don't mean to be one of those in denial, but communism is a classless, stateless society. Any form of a state or social classes is NOT communism. "Communist states" are governments that are usually run by a Communist Party with the GOAL of communism. Therefore, the crimes of Stalin and Mao are not communism's fault; they are Stalin's and Mao's faults.

Furthermore, I am not entirely opposed to Mao or Mao Tse-tung Thought. I know China went through some rough times during the Revolution, to put it lightly. But you capitalists, who can't make up your mind, and will say that Mao killed 20-70 million people. You can't even make up your mind, because your statistics come from the Chinese government or the bourgeois media! Now who's objectifying human lives?!

On the issue of Stalin, how can you even argue that Stalin was a good Marxist-Leninist? HE OPENLY MADE AGREEMENTS WITH FASCISTS! And since when is Lenin a heartless murderer? The violence attributed to the Bolshevik Revolution came after the Civil War was started by the White Army. Lenin was the hero of the Russian proletariat. Lenin's authoritarianism was in the face of Civil War. Stalin was authoritarian for his own self-interest.

Nobody points out the number of millions capitalism has killed, because it's not in the interests of the bourgeois state. But if I used the same logic as you capitalists, I could blame both world wars on you, I could blame fascism on you, I could blame disease, starvation, poverty on you. Do the millions that capitalism killed not matter to you?

In conclusion, I agree with Jello Biaffra, in that communism and anarchism have the same goals, albeit different methods. Remember, there cannot be communism with a state. For everyone who was wronfully killed in communism's name, rest in peace. But tear down this oversimplification and joke of a memorial! Long live Marxism-Leninism!

Therefore, the crimes of Stalin and Mao are not communism's fault; they are Stalin's and Mao's faults.
The thing is, "communism" both denotes a form of government and a political movement devoted to achieve that form of government. Stalin and Mao are clearly part of the latter.

Mao killed 20-70 million people. You can't even make up your mind, because your statistics come from the Chinese government or the bourgeois media! Now who's objectifying human lives?!
Might it be because there was no census in China and there was no one keeping records?

On the issue of Stalin, how can you even argue that Stalin was a good Marxist-Leninist?
Why would anyone argue that? He was a Marxist-Leninist in that he followed some parts of the philosophy. But he was a Stalinist, meaning that he added some of his own ideas (including Socialism in One Country, Electrification and so on).

Doesn't make him any less of a communist though.

Nobody points out the number of millions capitalism has killed, because it's not in the interests of the bourgeois state. But if I used the same logic as you capitalists, I could blame both world wars on you, I could blame fascism on you, I could blame disease, starvation, poverty on you. Do the millions that capitalism killed not matter to you?
The thing is that most people do a very bad job explaining why communism as an ideology was a big part of the reason these people were killed. Not the fact that the murderers called themselves communism or used communist language, but that the very reason they murdered was rooted in communist ideology.

I agree that there probably are a few cases in which capitalism as an ideology was an excuse for atrocities (or perhaps rather the protection of it, as in the various anti-communist purges all over the world). But fascism (which openly rejected capitalism and liberalism), disease, starvation and even the World Wars have nothing to do with capitalism as an ideology.

Which I suppose sorta links back to the fact that being greedy or trying to make money isn't capitalist behaviour, but human behaviour. Capitalism (or rather "market liberalism") just argues that we should let people do that. Someone isn't capitalist because he makes a million dollars, he's capitalist because he says that someone should be allowed to make a million dollars, to keep it in extremely simple terms. Of course that isn't a blank cheque for crappy behaviour though. There are very few (very extreme) market liberals out there who would argue that knowingly letting people starve is a good thing, they're just saying that using compulsion and force to make people help others ends up creating more pain than it eliminates.

The thing is, "communism" both denotes a form of government and a political movement devoted to achieve that form of government. Stalin and Mao are clearly part of the latter.


Communism is not a form of government, because there is no government in communism...

Just because capitalism is not associated with an ideology or State does not mean it's free to kill anyone it pleases. By the logic of this memorial, anyone who ever dies of starvation, poverty, political violence, or war is a "victim of communism." Using those rules, capitalism could have easily killed more. And, as Lenin said, "fascism is capitalism in decay." What is the fascist state but a gigantic nation-wide corporation? The world wars were started by fascism, and so they were started by capitalism. I know this is a stretch, but this is the same kind of thing the capitalists use to argue against us. I'm just trying to point out how ridiculous it sounds sometimes.

How about a victims of statism memorial? Government is the most insidious mass murderer in history, whatever its guise: fascism, communism, Nazism, even "democracy."

Yes, the State has killed a great amount of people. From your rhetoric, I assume you are an anarchist. Comrade, we've got the same goals in mind, but I don't think your methods are realistic. There are steps to abolishing the State. First we have to abolish social classes. Be patient, Comrade!

In communism, there is no state.

All forms of socialism require a state.

Yes, the State has killed a great amount of people. From your rhetoric, I assume you are an anarchist. Comrade, we've got the same goals in mind, but I don't think your methods are realistic. There are steps to abolishing the State. First we have to abolish social classes. Be patient, Comrade!

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, actually. :)

Nope. Capitalism might require a state, but not communism.

Capitalism requires absence of a state. ;)

All forms of socialism require a state.Nope. Capitalism might require a state, but not communism.

Communism is not a form of government, because there is no government in communism...
You know what I mean though. Make it a "type or organisation for society".

Just because capitalism is not associated with an ideology or State does not mean it's free to kill anyone it pleases.

By the logic of this memorial, anyone who ever dies of starvation, poverty, political violence, or war is a "victim of communism."
Well, firstly nobody dies of poverty.

Secondly, what you're saying makes no sense. If a communist government created a famine or gulags in the name of the ideology, then it sorta makes sense to acknowledge that fact.

Using those rules, capitalism could have easily killed more.
Except that very few ever started gulags, started famines and destroyed lives in the name of capitalism. I challenge you to find me anything like the link I pointed out above between Capitalism and bad things that have happened under countries that allowed reasonably free enterprise.

And, as Lenin said, "fascism is capitalism in decay."
I don't care what Lenin said. I care what Mussolini said (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html).

Mussolini was a socialist until he saw in WWI that rather than fighting together against their oppressors, the proletariat instead happily slaughtered each other. So he concluded that the whole idea of the proletariat as an international thing was stupid and instead created what later became fascism (and returned to its roots for a few days during the Salo Republic). Hell, even the early Nazi party had people to whom the word "national socialism" was actually meaningful.

But I'm not gonna sit here and try to blame fascism on communism. I'm just trying to make you look into these ideologies. Just because the Nazis and the Commies got into a fight during WWII doesn't mean that the propaganda from then can be used indefinitely. Not everyone who is against communism is a fascist and not every fascist is against communism.

What is the fascist state but a gigantic nation-wide corporation?
It's rather more complicated than that. I like the comparison though.

Nonetheless, capitalism is not about a giant corporation, it's about many businesses competing with each other (and quite a few capitalists aren't fans of big corporations at all...Schumpeter reckoned they would kill capitalism) and the freedom to leave or join a business whenever you want.

The world wars were started by fascism, and so they were started by capitalism. I know this is a stretch, but this is the same kind of thing the capitalists use to argue against us. I'm just trying to point out how ridiculous it sounds sometimes.
Again, I challenge you to actually find me the same sort of link I pointed out in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12794037&postcount=81) for capitalism and "capitalist crimes".

Capitalism requires absence of a state. ;)So it can be privatized?

Show us where the reeducation camps, gulags, and mass death sentences are found within the definition of communism.

Extract from the Dictionarius Mustikos Skeptikos:
Communism: (n) Komm-you-niz-um. Anything associated with reeducation camps, gulags, or mass death sentences. Communist: (n) Komm-you-nist. Anyone in favour of reeducation camps, gulags, or mass death sentences. ex. The vice-principal is such a communist.

Extract from the Dictionarius Mustikos Skeptikos:
Communism: (n) Komm-you-niz-um. Anything associated with reeducation camps, gulags, or mass death sentences. Communist: (n) Komm-you-nist. Anyone in favour of reeducation camps, gulags, or mass death sentences. ex. The vice-principal is such a communist.Lol. That's about right, yeah.

Eh, no, I'd rather pray for the descendants of the victims of the East India Company and the Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie.

Raises a new question though, which better,... being a victim of an ideology or a victim of profit.

1.?

2.PROFIT!

Nope. Capitalism might require a state, but not communism.

In lala land maybe.

Eh, no, I'd rather pray for the descendants of the victims of the East India Company and the Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie.

Raises a new question though, which better,... being a victim of an ideology or a victim of profit.

1.?

2.PROFIT!

This got me into thinking...

"Communists" like to point out that these 10^8 people weren't victims of communism, as their killers deviated from original communistic thought, but they rarely do this in the case of capitalism. If victims of Mao or Stalin weren't victims of, saying coloquially, communism, then victims of colonialism, greedy multinational corporations, various Pinochets or resource wars weren't victims of capitalism but of people hiding their power-hunger or greed under the veil of said ideology. Alternatively, one might compare actions of corporation or dictator with works of John Locke of whoever, and when it does not fit, state that said entity is not capitalistic.


Everybody please don't respond to my post, or, if someone really wants to, don't ask me to answer. I don't feel like discussing, only wanted to state my opinion. :D

Of course there should be. Like it or not, those regimes called themselves "Communist" and they were the only examples we have of communism in practice. A lot of people died because of them and we should have memorials so that people do not forget the deaths caused by an ideology that was even bloodier than fascism despite lasting less than a century.

Of course there should be. Like it or not, those regimes called themselves "Communist" and they were the only examples we have of communism in practice. A lot of people died because of them and we should have memorials so that people do not forget the deaths caused by an ideology that was even bloodier than fascism despite lasting less than a century.

I like the cut of your jib

Ah yes - the denial argument. No winning that one!

You are using the first two fallacies I shared; "It wasnt really communist" , "It wasn’t pure communism". Some call it Reductio Ad Absurdum, others; Moving the Goalpost. Either way there is no arguing against fallacy.

Regardless of your over-definition of the term - the crimes were all done under the goal of communism and commuinism provided the perfect vehicle for commiting them.

There is no logical fallacy there. To say that Soviet Russia was not communist because it did not meet the definition of communism is merely comparing an example to a definition.

Communism is defined as a stateless, classless society structured around voluntary cooperation, direct democracy, decentralization and the maxim "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Now Soviet Russia was a totalitarian state (definitely not stateless then), with deeply entrenched class divisions, with the nomenklatura merely replacing the old masters of capitalism. Cooperation with the state was forced or coerced, no semblance of even representative democracy existed, let alone direct democracy. The state centralized all control under the Communist Party, which is decidedly not decentralization, and the rank and files needs were not met while the party elite were swamped in luxury. Soviet Russia stands as a complete inversion of a communist society.

In fact, one could support the claim that Soviet Russia was less communistic then the US, a notoriously anti-communist and pro-capitalist nation. To call Soviet Russia or any other of the many masquerading communist nations not a true communist nation is the same as saying an apple is not a true jet liner. There is no fallacy there.

Nope. Capitalism might require a state, but not communism.

LOL.
You are so full of crap and you don't even know it!

COMMUNISM IS ALL ABOUT THE STATE!


They just call it 'the community' instead. It is all about the common needs of the 'community' (read - State) being more important than the freedom if the individual. Alot like fascism, eh?

Of course there should be. Like it or not, those regimes called themselves "Communist" and they were the only examples we have of communism in practice. A lot of people died because of them and we should have memorials so that people do not forget the deaths caused by an ideology that was even bloodier than fascism despite lasting less than a century.They did call themselves Communist. However, (for instance) The Democratic People's Republic of Korea calls itself Democratic. Is North Korea Democratic?

LOL.
You are so full of crap and you don't even know it!

COMMUNISM IS ALL ABOUT THE STATE!


They just call it 'the community' instead. It is all about the common needs of the 'community' (read - State) being more important than the freedom if the individual. Alot like fascism, eh?1) Since communism is defined as being stateless, how can it be all about the state? It is impossible.
2) The freedom of the individual is maximized when the needs of the community are met. If this wasn't the case, why would individuals live in communities in the first place?
3) Putting your argument in large type doesn't make it any less wrong.

They did call themselves Communist. However, (for instance) The Democratic People's Republic of Korea calls itself Democratic. Is North Korea Democratic?


Many many aspects about the economy were communist, impart from the fact that it was centralised not stateless if you want to think that.


1) Since communism is defined as being stateless, how can it be all about the state? It is impossible.
2) The freedom of the individual is maximized when the needs of the community are met. If this wasn't the case, why would individuals live in communities in the first place?
3) Putting your argument in large type doesn't make it any less wrong.

1) Unless you're an anarchist, you are going to favour centalised control, like the central comitte of the communes or whatever you want to disguise it as. It's still identical to the state.

2) People don't live in communities because they think they'll have bett0r freed0mz!

Many many aspects about the economy were communist, impart from the fact that it was centralised not stateless if you want to think that. Really? The workers controlled the means of production?

Unless you're an anarchist, you are going to favour centalised control, like the central comitte of the communes or whatever you want to disguise it as. It's still identical to the state.And as I said before, communism is a form of anarchism.

People don't live in communities because they think they'll have bett0r freed0mz!Then why do people live in communities?

Really? The workers controlled the means of production?


For a very tempory period, and it was so terribly chaotically disastrously bad. Industry effectively stopped. Although this was under Lenin not stalin.


And as I said before, communism is a form of anarchism.


in theory


Then why do people live in communities?

Because they don't want to be lonely?

For a very tempory period, and it was so terribly chaotically disastrously bad. Industry effectively stopped. Although this was under Lenin not stalin.How much industry did they have back then?

Because they don't want to be lonely?Or in other words, to enhance their freedom of association.

How much industry did they have back then?


Enough to be compared to figures under the Tsar, which had even smaller industry but was doing better.


Or in other words, to enhance their freedom of association.

Doesn't mean they want communism, and it doesn't mean everyone wants to live in the commune.

Enough to be compared to figures under the Tsar, which had even smaller industry but was doing better.Source?

Doesn't mean they want communism, and it doesn't mean everyone wants to live in the commune.I didn't say that it did.

Source?


I'll see what I can find, I can't be bothered to scan in my history text books, but thats where i'm getting a lot of this stuff from.

I'll see what I can find, I can't be bothered to scan in my history text books, but thats where i'm getting a lot of this stuff from.Oh, I see. Does it say how much of the drop in production was due to the Russian Civil War?

However, as a historian - albeit not one particularly of the period

Which period/location/subject of history do you specialise in?

Funny. I could say the exact same thing about capitalism and the military coup in 1964 that Brazil underwent in its name. Unless your point is "every system is flawed", you have no point. For that matter, have you ever studied anything about communism?

Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin.

In communism, there is no state.

Which is one of my beefs with communism.

Well...

Memorial for victims of communism

...Is kinda trollish IMO

what about the victims of Capitalism or any other -ism

Victims of 'Fo shizzlism'!

People, people. Why the hell do you respond to obvious trolls like this Mystical Skeptic?

It's fairly clear from his op that he's going "I'm right, and you're all wrong. You're arguments are wrong. Lalalalala, I can't here you"

Please, for the sake of sanity, let him die ignored and alone.

I didn't realise that NSG was so radical that even anyone who disagrees with communism is now a troll :rolleyes:

When someone makes an accusation, and pre-emptively says "You can't use these arguments, and I'll ignore any other arguments", it's clear that he's not interested in debate.

Well stated.

I thank God that I was born in the USA, as were my parents and three of four grandparents. And when Marx and Lenin and Stalin and Mao and that bearded bandit in Havana and all their bloodthirsty minions are told to "depart from me, ye accursed," I will rejoice in God's justice.

The horrible results are denied even today by many - most of whom are very distant from the death camps and chaos where communist 'fairness' was inflicted. "It wasnt really communist" , "It wasn’t pure communism" and my favorite "It wasn't given enough time!". All evidence that there are still plenty of people who would jump at the chance to re-learn the lessons of the past - no matter what the cost. Apparently the the 'statistics' Stalin spoke of are just to large and unfathomable for them to grasp. Instead they warp their minds with vain attempts at camouflaging their ignorance of the suffering communism has caused with far stretched moral equivalencies and creative rationalizations. Many people still get seduced by the same lies told a century ago. They are seductive lies - but lies all the same.


Wow. It's 1954 all over again.

Aside from just mentioning the rejoinders to your so-called point (the ones I've bolded -- I've never heard anyone say "it wasn't given enough time", and I'm 36 and politically involved...you'd think I'd have heard that one at least once) without actually refuting them, your post is so much emotional-appeal, pro-market claptrap posing as patriotic claptrap.

News flash: Stalin was no more a Communist than Donald Trump. Neither was Mao. State-communism is not genuine communism, and if you'd read Marx, you'd know that. You clearly haven't. You've taken the talking points from some pro-capitalist site and blared them out as if they meant anything.

Nice try, sonny.

Two perfect examples of the denials I mentioned before. Thanks for your contribution.

Denials that you have yet to refute.

Thanks for your horseshit.

And an example of the strectehed moral equivalency and creative rationalization I described too. All in just one page! Wondeful!

edit


make that TWO! You GO!

And you continue to blather on without citing a damned thing as support for your pronouncements. Do you type just to read your own words in print?

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070614/photos_wl_afp/55b76412c3378ad5a2efaeadef825df2

http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=22047

100,000,000 people in one century, or 1,000,000 per year. 2,740 per day. 114 per hour. Almost two killed each minute - and that is a conservative estimate. It does not even count the pain, starvation and suffering of the billions of other victims. Stalin said that the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions a statistic. The waste of so many lives in a futile attempt at proving an obviously flawed social theory can only be understated by any memorial gesture, no matter how grand.

The treasure of the common good being superior to the individual tuned out to be as many predicted; fools gold.

The horrible results are denied even today by many - most of whom are very distant from the death camps and chaos where communist 'fairness' was inflicted. "It wasnt really communist" , "It wasn’t pure communism" and my favorite "It wasn't given enough time!". All evidence that there are still plenty of people who would jump at the chance to re-learn the lessons of the past - no matter what the cost. Apparently the the 'statistics' Stalin spoke of are just to large and unfathomable for them to grasp. Instead they warp their minds with vain attempts at camouflaging their ignorance of the suffering communism has caused with far stretched moral equivalencies and creative rationalizations. Many people still get seduced by the same lies told a century ago. They are seductive lies - but lies all the same.

Pause for one minute. Think of two people who you love, then give thanks to whatever powers you believe in that they are not among the two people per minute who died last century in the name of communism - pray that those few still living under communism find freedom, and that it soon perishes from practice completely - only to be found in the history texts as a cautionary tale about the value of eternal vigilance.

Yea... Communism killed my brother. It just crept into the house one night while he was asleep and made its way to his room.

I personally think the future of communism is in democratic socialism, I believe this entails what I call 'consensus democratic' workplaces where each employee has a vote on such issues as wages, production, entitlements, days off, market choices, investment etc, these would be conducted through workers congresses at the workplace itself, and their would be no high central authority or union to regulate down upon the workers, instead they would have their own decisions in consultation with the entire workplace, and employers/investor bosses and those in leadership positions because they were elected in by the workers, usually probably because of their knowledge of the market and production etc, but also that they defend workers right. Once you introduce devolution to workplaces (I used the 'workplace' as a model for society), people in common consensus can make their own decisions, imo central govt regulation is the waterloo of communism.

As I see it, in the Western World we already have the political democratic basis, all we need do is apply above model to the workplace, which is at the moment operated as I see it like a 'Tyranny within a Democracy' if you understand me. The state in my model would act as a minimal social interventionist to ensure poverty, homelessness are eliminated and rights for workers are in law, but it would be minimal and mostly let autonomous companies operate according to the market at the behest of all who give their labor to insure it's continuation.

Show me the re-education camps, the gulags, the mass death sentences handed out by any government which defined itself under the terms 'capitalist" and you have a point. Otherwise you are just another peddler of deceit and lies.

That's not how captialism works (unless, perhaps, you count Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib...). That's not how real communism would work, either, save for the "examples" of Stalin and Mao and a couple of other autocratic emperors.

Capitalist re-education camps are known as "schools" and "television" where kids learn that consumption and continued unchecked growth without consequence are the American birthright. The gulag is really any place where capital isn't. Inner cities, rural areas, and so forth. The freedom capitalism enjoys is only as liberating as you have cash to pay for it.

Draping it in the flag makes it no better than the half-assed communism Stalin, Mao and the like steered their dictatirships through.

Now I know you're just going to dismiss this post out of hand, and that's fine, I come to expect that from you lot. So I'll just respectfully agree to disagree and leave you to wallow in self-satisfied and oblivious ignorance. I know how good that makes you flag-humpers feel.

Yea... Communism killed my brother. It just crept into the house one night while he was asleep and made its way to his room.

Communism killed my family too, it was a red ghost like figure that look like an anagram of Stalin, Marx and Lenin, with a glowing ethereal hammer and sickle above it's head, it drained their souls into the collective and disappeared.

You stretch and stretch but still can't make the connection. Sorry. You lose.

Uh-oh, kids -- he's dragged out the tried and true post hoc ergo propter hoc smarmy smugness we've all come to know so well from fevered egos like his. Hide your eyes, boys and girls, this is never pretty.

Communism killed my family too, it was a red ghost like figure that look like an anagram of Stalin, Marx and Lenin, with a glowing ethereal hammer and sickle above it's head, it drained their souls into the collective and disappeared.

http://zombielenin.ytmnd.com/

Well stated.

I thank God that I was born in the USA, as were my parents and three of four grandparents. And when Marx and Lenin and Stalin and Mao and that bearded bandit in Havana and all their bloodthirsty minions are told to "depart from me, ye accursed," I will rejoice in God's justice.

It is to laugh that you think God cares about ideology.

I think this thread is unfairly biased against marxist theory, I mean on the logic of the OP Hitler, Mussolini, the Roman Emperors, Pinochet and every military junta or right-wing tyranny that has ever existed should be held as an example of Capitalism. I mean those right-wing tyrannies were closer to capitalism/right than Stalin was to Marxism. Maybe you guys should read some Trotskyist/democratic socialist literature sometime.

Read this too: http://www.mathaba.net/gci/theory/gb1.htm

Which period/location/subject of history do you specialise in?

Usually military history, primarily the 20th Century; I just finished a dissertation on the sue of airborne forces in the Second World War.

1) Since communism is defined as being stateless, how can it be all about the state? It is impossible.


LOL!! You aree so delusional. How about this;

com·mu·nism NOUN:

A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

Oh gee. Looks like you're full of crap - again!. Dang you make it easy!

Sure - you could try for some flowery imaginary wish that people just suddenly decide to abandon all ambition. You can wish for Santa Claus to deliver a workers paradise under your tree too.

The reality is that if you want to 'abolish' property and make it a crime to earn more than your neighbor, then you will need a central power to enforce your 'utopia'. Thereby negating the whole point of it and contradicting your stated point.

Besides - making everything public property is about the STUPIDEST idea I've ever heard of. A fine example of why would be public restrooms: You can see how well people treat stuff they don't have any ownership of! It is soo fun and pleasing to use public restrooms lets make everything public just like that! (My sarcasm font looks like italics)

Ya see - your dream is a pipe dream. Empty. Contradictory to itself. Silly. It is simply based in a sad reality - you are jealous of what other people have and you want it given to you for free. Every post of yours has been about how free stuff will deliver freedom. It is a very sad and materialistic outlook. I certainly hope someday you find something more satisfying than a lust for 'stuff'.

Soviet Russia stands as a complete inversion of a communist society.
Thank you. Someone understands what I was saying...Marx and Engels fucked up.

Soviet Russia was the attempt to do what those two prophets said needed to be done: dictatorship of the proletariat (which is obviously impractical, hence the use of a proxy in the form of the communist party) and redistribution of productive capacity (ie nationalisation).

In Marxist theory that would have been going for a while until it was so successful that there is no more need for resources to actually be distributed since scarcity disappears. And since there would be no more need for government, it would fade away.

Show me the re-education camps, the gulags, the mass death sentences handed out by any government which defined itself under the terms 'capitalist" and you have a point. Otherwise you are just another peddler of deceit and lies.

Suharto in Indonesia.

I'll tell my friend he's a liar next time we meet. maybe he won't kill you over it...

Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin.

Augusto Pinochet, Arthur da Costa e Silva*, Castelo Branco**, Ernesto Geisel***, Emílio Garrastazu Médici****, Leopoldo Galtieri, Francisco Franco, António Salazar, Fungencio Batista, Luis García Meza Tejada.

*: In my country.
**: Also in my country.
***: What do you know, in my country.
****: Guess where?

Goes to show you shouldn't play the "capitalists do no harm" card with a Latin American around.

Your hand, sir?

LOL!! You aree so delusional. How about this;Uh uh. That dictionary wasn't written by communists. It was written by western government who created their own strawman definition of what communism is.
But it doesn't work that way. The opposition doesn't get to define any ideology. Unless of course, you're suggesting that it's fine for me to write my own definition of what communism is.
Find me a communist who defines communism in that way and you'll have a point.

Sure - you could try for some flowery imaginary wish that people just suddenly decide to abandon all ambition. You can wish for Santa Claus to deliver a workers paradise under your tree too. Why would I want nobody to have any ambition? Nothing would progress.

The reality is that if you want to 'abolish' property and make it a crime to earn more than your neighbor, then you will need a central power to enforce your 'utopia'. Thereby negating the whole point of it and contradicting your stated point.Nope, I wish to abolish ownership (and money). There doesn't need to be a state to enforce this; if a militia wishes to form to fight thieves, they can.

Besides - making everything public property is about the STUPIDEST idea I've ever heard of. A fine example of why would be public restrooms: You can see how well people treat stuff they don't have any ownership of! It is soo fun and pleasing to use public restrooms lets make everything public just like that! (My sarcasm font looks like italics)Please tell me how community control of something somehow equates to nobody in the community controlling that something.

Ya see - your dream is a pipe dream. Empty. Contradictory to itself. Silly. It is simply based in a sad reality - you are jealous of what other people have and you want it given to you for free. Every post of yours has been about how free stuff will deliver freedom. It is a very sad and materialistic outlook. I certainly hope someday you find something more satisfying than a lust for 'stuff'.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_freedom

Well, it was an anarchist who told Marx his 'dictatorship of the proletariat' bit would lead to tears...

...and it was the anarchists, socialists and left-radicals who were among the first to die during the Russian Civil War and Spanish Civil War...

...so yes, I think that a memorial is a good thing.

Here's to the P.O.U.M and the May Days, to Kronstadt and to Kropotkin, to freedom and the dream of utopia!

All that said, Marx hit the nail on the head in a lot of other areas, and the far-left all share the same end-point; we just differ (wildly) in how best to get there.

So no, I don't think that the memorial is a sensible thing.

Uh uh. That dictionary wasn't written by communists. It was written by western government who created their own strawman definition of what communism is. But it doesn't work that way. The opposition doesn't get to define any ideology. Unless of course, you're suggesting that it's fine for me to write my own definition of what communism is.

OMG! Take another bong-hit dude! You haven't yet been ABLE to make anything resembling a consistent definition of communism. You change your definition so much I'm beginning to think you support chamealionaism.


Why would I want nobody to have any ambition? Nothing would progress.Now you're catching on!

Nope, I wish to abolish ownership (and money). There doesn't need to be a state to enforce this; if a militia wishes to form to fight thieves, they can.
Without property what would thieves steal? Are you changing your position yet again?

Please tell me how community control of something somehow equates to nobody in the community controlling that something. You already did in your enlightening discussion of waste management.

Please stop and re-evaluate your positions. You credibility is trashed. Come back once you outgrow this wishy-washyness.

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070614/photos_wl_afp/55b76412c3378ad5a2efaeadef825df2

http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=22047

100,000,000 people in one century, or 1,000,000 per year. 2,740 per day. 114 per hour. Almost two killed each minute - and that is a conservative estimate. It does not even count the pain, starvation and suffering of the billions of other victims. Stalin said that the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions a statistic. The waste of so many lives in a futile attempt at proving an obviously flawed social theory can only be understated by any memorial gesture, no matter how grand.

The treasure of the common good being superior to the individual tuned out to be as many predicted; fools gold.

The horrible results are denied even today by many - most of whom are very distant from the death camps and chaos where communist 'fairness' was inflicted. "It wasnt really communist" , "It wasn’t pure communism" and my favorite "It wasn't given enough time!". All evidence that there are still plenty of people who would jump at the chance to re-learn the lessons of the past - no matter what the cost. Apparently the the 'statistics' Stalin spoke of are just to large and unfathomable for them to grasp. Instead they warp their minds with vain attempts at camouflaging their ignorance of the suffering communism has caused with far stretched moral equivalencies and creative rationalizations. Many people still get seduced by the same lies told a century ago. They are seductive lies - but lies all the same.

Pause for one minute. Think of two people who you love, then give thanks to whatever powers you believe in that they are not among the two people per minute who died last century in the name of communism - pray that those few still living under communism find freedom, and that it soon perishes from practice completely - only to be found in the history texts as a cautionary tale about the value of eternal vigilance.

Hardly worth dignifying.

'Communism' means nothing more than the citizens owning the means of production. That kills no one.

Like any other idea, you can harm people in it's name. like any other idea, you can harm people with a gesture towards it.

Does 'religion' kill? No - but you can kill in the name of religion. Does nationalism kill? No - but you can kill in the name of nationalism.

Ideas only become harmful in application. And their harm is a reflection more on those that apply them, than on the ideas themselves.

Hardly worth dignifying.

'Communism' means nothing more than the citizens owning the means of production. That kills no one.

Like any other idea, you can harm people in it's name. like any other idea, you can harm people with a gesture towards it.

Does 'religion' kill? No - but you can kill in the name of religion. Does nationalism kill? No - but you can kill in the name of nationalism.

Ideas only become harmful in application. And their harm is a reflection more on those that apply them, than on the ideas themselves.

Then by that standard then all memorials are invalid. WW2, WW1, etc. They are ALL memorials of the application of ideas. The idea of Imperial Japan dominating Asia vs the idea of Imperial Japan not dominating Asia. The idea of American independance from Britain vs the idea of unity of the kingdom. The idea of 'workers owning the means of production' (aka state confiscation of property) vs the idea that tyranny of the state is bad under any circumstance.

Thank you. Someone understands what I was saying...Marx and Engels fucked up.

Soviet Russia was the attempt to do what those two prophets said needed to be done: dictatorship of the proletariat (which is obviously impractical, hence the use of a proxy in the form of the communist party) and redistribution of productive capacity (ie nationalisation).

In Marxist theory that would have been going for a while until it was so successful that there is no more need for resources to actually be distributed since scarcity disappears. And since there would be no more need for government, it would fade away.

Unfortunately, no matter what I say, I can't get through to Mystical Skeptic. He just plays the "propaganda card", and he can doublethink his way through any challenge to his beliefs.

Maybe you can talk sense in to him.

Well, considering that Stalinist Russia and Mao's China weren't Communist nations, but were autocratic dictators that used a rather twisted version of Communism as a cover for their activities, your entire OP fails in it's mass strawman argument.

And I'm not even a Communist...

No, they were Communist.

Just like there's big L and little l libertarians, there are big C and little c communists.

Unfortunately, no matter what I say, I can't get through to Mystical Skeptic. He just plays the "propaganda card", and he can doublethink his way through any challenge to his beliefs.

Maybe you can talk sense in to him.

The propoganda card? What a trite way to surrender before you've begun! The force is weak with this one. Bring it on!

So far all I have done is simply hold posters accountable to their own warped justification of their ideas. Each has eventually collapsed under the weight of their own fallacy. Yours is the first to collapse before you've even begun! If holding your rationalization up to the light and asking you to justify it is 'propoganda' then I can see why so many have died in the name of communism!

Then by that standard then all memorials are invalid. WW2, WW1, etc. They are ALL memorials of the application of ideas. The idea of Imperial Japan dominating Asia vs the idea of Imperial Japan not dominating Asia. The idea of American independance from Britain vs the idea of unity of the kingdom. The idea of 'workers owning the means of production' (aka state confiscation of property) vs the idea that tyranny of the state is bad under any circumstance.

Do even you have any idea what you are talking about?

Are memorials 'valid' in any empirical sense? No - so your assertion that they would all be rendered 'invalid' is true. They are invalid.

The other point would, of course, be that a memorial usually commemorates 'lost souls'... not an idea.

The simple fact that you suggest 'workers owning the means of production' is equivalent to 'state confiscation of property', means there is little point continuing the debate.

Then by that standard then all memorials are invalid. WW2, WW1, etc. They are ALL memorials of the application of ideas. The idea of Imperial Japan dominating Asia vs the idea of Imperial Japan not dominating Asia. The idea of American independance from Britain vs the idea of unity of the kingdom. The idea of 'workers owning the means of production' (aka state confiscation of property) vs the idea that tyranny of the state is bad under any circumstance.

That's pretty damn silly.

The propoganda card? What a trite way to surrender before you've begun! The force is weak with this one. Bring it on!

So far all I have done is simply hold posters accountable to their own warped justification of their ideas. Each has eventually collapsed under the weight of their own fallacy. Yours is the first to collapse before you've even begun! If holding your rationalization up to the light and asking you to justify it is 'propoganda' then I can see why so many have died in the name of communism!

Did you even read my post? If not, I'll post a link to it right here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12797783&postcount=101)

If that's not good enough, I'll even repost it.

To say that Soviet Russia was not communist because it did not meet the definition of communism is merely comparing an example to a definition.

Communism is defined as a stateless, classless society structured around voluntary cooperation, direct democracy, decentralization and the maxim "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Now Soviet Russia was a totalitarian state (definitely not stateless then), with deeply entrenched class divisions, with the nomenklatura merely replacing the old masters of capitalism. Cooperation with the state was forced or coerced, no semblance of even representative democracy existed, let alone direct democracy. The state centralized all control under the Communist Party, which is decidedly not decentralization, and the rank and files needs were not met while the party elite were swamped in luxury. Soviet Russia stands as a complete inversion of a communist society.

In fact, one could support the claim that Soviet Russia was less communistic then the US, a notoriously anti-communist and pro-capitalist nation. To call Soviet Russia or any other of the many masquerading communist nations not a true communist nation is the same as saying an apple is not a true jet liner. There is no fallacy there.

Do even you have any idea what you are talking about?

Are memorials 'valid' in any empirical sense? No - so your assertion that they would all be rendered 'invalid' is true. They are invalid.

The other point would, of course, be that a memorial usually commemorates 'lost souls'... not an idea.
That you consider all memorials invalid and irrelevant is your perogative. You are free to disagree. It simply puts your prior comment in proper context.

The simple fact that you suggest 'workers owning the means of production' is equivalent to 'state confiscation of property', means there is little point continuing the debate.
The simple fact that you believe property can be forcefully confiscated and transferred without the use of government affirms that there is little point in continuing this debate. I simply don't believe in property-transfer fairies.

That's pretty damn silly.
Oooo! You got me there with that clever and well founded argument! I tremble in the presence of your logic! You sir are a wordsmith! (now THAT is silly!)

Stalin said that the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions a statistic.

Nope. No evidence whatsoever that he said anything of the sort.

OMG! Take another bong-hit dude! You haven't yet been ABLE to make anything resembling a consistent definition of communism. You change your definition so much I'm beginning to think you support chamealionaism.

Now you're catching on!


Without property what would thieves steal? Are you changing your position yet again?

You already did in your enlightening discussion of waste management.

Please stop and re-evaluate your positions. You credibility is trashed. Come back once you outgrow this wishy-washyness.

Your logic is infallible. :rolleyes:

Oooo! You got me there with that clever and well founded argument! I tremble in the presence of your logic! You sir are a wordsmith! (now THAT is silly!)

Oh, the irony.

Dude, definitly not the place. I agree with you, but, learn, seriously. If you're conservative, just stick to II.

OMG! Take another bong-hit dude! You haven't yet been ABLE to make anything resembling a consistent definition of communism. You change your definition so much I'm beginning to think you support chamealionaism.Uh, I've said that communism is a stateless, classless society where the workers control the means of production from the get-go.

Now you're catching on!Of course, simply because people should have ambition doesn't mean that they should receive more resources than other people.

Without property what would thieves steal? Are you changing your position yet again?You're not confusing ownership rights with property rights, are you?

You already did in your enlightening discussion of waste management.Nope, I didn't.

Please stop and re-evaluate your positions. You credibility is trashed. Come back once you outgrow this wishy-washyness.My positions are fine. Yours, on the other hand, aren't consistent with the definitions of the things you're supposedly against.

Ad Hominem attacks is all you have? Gee - and I thought maybe you guys had more potential than that. I shouldn't be so disappointed I suppose. Once I demonstrated that your argument had no merit you really had nothing else. I'm just amazed how fast I got you there.

As far as me being conservative - you can assume what you want but it won't make it true. I'm sure you have more substance to add to this conversation than that --- unless maybe you are some sort of puppet nation. Hmmm.

Ad Hominem attacks is all you have? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

In the name of capitalism sure, but not actual capitalism. Wouldn't it make it the same as this memorial?
Communism is non-existant. It's vaporware politics, it does not exist, it's a piece of paper that can never be used. etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Nice try - but you are still not prepared to support your own position. I have not made any statements which were not based on the content of your or anyone else's statements. You really need to study these terms before you use them. Meanwhile I congratulate you for not sinking to their level.

Uh, I've said that communism is a stateless, classless society where the workers control the means of production from the get-go.

Of course, simply because people should have ambition doesn't mean that they should receive more resources than other people.

You're not confusing ownership rights with property rights, are you?

Nope, I didn't.

My positions are fine. Yours, on the other hand, aren't consistent with the definitions of the things you're supposedly against.

Because I'm kind and generous - and also because I hate chain replies which get out of hand - I'm going to let you select any one of the above statements and then I will demonstrate in this thread where you have provided your own refutation. Even though I've already done it twice before and I hold no pretence that a third time will make any difference.

Nice try - but you are still not prepared to support your own position. I have not made any statements which were not based on the content of your own statements. You really need to study these terms before you use them.Well, to avoid discussing what you've done in the past, I will simply challenge you to respond to the points that I made above.

Well, to avoid discussing what you've done in the past, I will simply challenge you to respond to the points that I made above.

Come on dude - you at least read enough of my post to realize I said select one. I'm not going to get sucked in to some long and boring convoluted chain-response. It is just that kind of thinking that confuses people into thinking communism makes sense.

Besides - your first statement is yet one more example of avoidance on your part. When you lack fact you tend to do that.

The simple fact that you believe property can be forcefully confiscated and transferred without the use of government affirms that there is little point in continuing this debate. I simply don't believe in property-transfer fairies.


Since you are so sure that government is necessary for worker confiscation of property, what is it that hinders the worker from doing so without government?

More importantly what hinders the worker from doing it now?

EDIT: And saying your post is silly is not an ad hominem. It is a simple discription of the statement that war memorials are memorials to the application of ideas and not to those who fought and or died in those wars. Not only that but you completely missed the point.

Come on dude - you at least read enough of my post to realize I said select one. /snip irrelevanceIn the interests of furthering debate, fine.

"You're not confusing ownership rights with property rights, are you?"

Answer that one.

Besides - your first statement is yet one more example of avoidance on your part. When you lack fact you tend to do that.Not at all. It's simply much easier to defeat your argument than to go back and quote several instances of ad hominem on your part.
Additionally, to do the latter would also make me guilty of ad hominem.

In the interests of furthering debate, fine.

"You're not confusing ownership rights with property rights, are you?"

Answer that one.

Not at all. It's simply much easier to defeat your argument than to go back and quote several instances of ad hominem on your part.
Additionally, to do the latter would also make me guilty of ad hominem.

Ah - but that is not a statement - it is a question - and on a new topic at that. My request was for you to select a statement you have made and I will demonstrate where you have countered that statement already in this thread. Now - a question is really not something you can counter with any statement - is it. Please select one of your statements.

As far as ad-hominem goes - you have been remarkably disciplined at avoiding that. I complimented you before about that and I will add now that you have gained further respect from me for doing so. I would not take offence at you holding me accountable here if you feel I have attacked you personally, unfairly and outside of the context of any statements you have made. I will admit to using colorful statements to make a point and hopefully liven up what could be a drap post - and if that offended you then I regret it.

Since you are so sure that government is necessary for worker confiscation of property, what is it that hinders the worker from doing so without government?

More importantly what hinders the worker from doing it now?

Didn't you say in another thread that the point of government was to act as a counter to the market? Now you suggest it is to prevent workers from confiscating property. Seems like two seperate issues to me. Maybe you could expand on that.

Modern government provides, among other things, a proper market for dealing with trade. One tool necessary for the commencement of trade is the idea of ownership. In an orderly markey you cannot trade what is not yours without permission of the owner.

The concept of ownership is all it takes to prevent most people from taking something they have not earned. Other people need a more forceful deterrent...

Part of the role of government in encouraging trade is to enforce the concept of ownership. THere is an entire system of law enforcement, courts, contracts, title, and other means of defining, trading, enforcing and contesting ownership. They all boil down to the orderly commencement of trade. Were people to start taking things outside the framework of ownership then trade would collapse.

What prevents workers from confiscating property is the mutual realization that a chaotic disregard for ownership would be harmful. Those few who don't realize this are often not part of any team of workers - except maybe a chain gang... :)



EDIT: And saying your post is silly is not an ad hominem. It is a simple discription of the statement that war memorials are memorials to the application of ideas and not to those who fought and or died in those wars. Not only that but you completely missed the point.

Didn't you say in another thread that the point of government was to act as a counter to the market? Now you suggest it is to prevent workers from confiscating property. Seems like two seperate issues to me. Maybe you could expand on that.

Modern government provides, among other things, a proper market for dealing with trade. One tool necessary for the commencement of trade is the idea of ownership. In an orderly markey you cannot trade what is not yours without permission of the owner.

The concept of ownership is all it takes to prevent most people from taking something they have not earned. Other people need a more forceful deterrent...

Part of the role of government in encouraging trade is to enforce the concept of ownership. THere is an entire system of law enforcement, courts, contracts, title, and other means of defining, trading, enforcing and contesting ownership. They all boil down to the orderly commencement of trade. Were people to start taking things outside the framework of ownership then trade would collapse.

What prevents workers from confiscating property is the mutual realization that a chaotic disregard for ownership would be harmful. Those few who don't realize this are often not part of any team of workers - except maybe a chain gang... :)

I believe that government protection of property rights is an invasion on the market. As I said, the market preexists the state, and all government action is market alteration.

Property, like everything else will be determined by the pricing functions of the market. If the owner of a company cannot afford to protect his company from his workers, it is only natural that they seize it.

I do not disagree that there would be a general idea of "ownership", nor do I argue that there will be ownership will be done away with. I only argue that the state does not have a good record of observing fair ownership, or at least what its people considers "fair". Workers who seize their employers property will not be thieves in their own mind, but liberators of what is theirs. Not only do I think that the state has no moral authority to say what is and isn't theirs, I believe that the market will answer that question with as little violence as the state.

But I think you will agree at this point that the state is a primary hindrance to "property-transfers", especially so to the have-nots.

Ah - but that is not a statement - it is a question - and on a new topic at that. My request was for you to select a statement you have made and I will demonstrate where you have countered that statement already in this thread. Now - a question is really not something you can counter with any statement - is it. Please select one of your statements. Fine. How about this one?

"Of course, simply because people should have ambition doesn't mean that they should receive more resources than other people."

As far as ad-hominem goes - you have been remarkably disciplined at avoiding that. I complimented you before about that and I will add now that you have gained further respect from me for doing so. I would not take offence at you holding me accountable here if you feel I have attacked you personally, unfairly and outside of the context of any statements you have made. I will admit to using colorful statements to make a point and hopefully liven up what could be a drap post - and if that offended you then I regret it.Why thank you for your compliment.
I can't say that I was offended by your statements, so consider it dropped, for now.

100,000,000 people in one century, or 1,000,000 per year. 2,740 per day. 114 per hour. Almost two killed each minute - and that is a conservative estimate.

Yes, I bet it is. More nazi than conservative, maybe.

In Italy, this estimate was largely advertised by Berlusconi - that shitface.

I've seen the calculation behind the "100M killed by commies". It includes:
1.the Soviet military and civilian casualties during WW2, including those killed in the nazi lagers.
2.the victims of the famine in Ukraine (Holodmor)
3.the Chinese casualties during WW2 - like China was communist in WW2, and imperialistic Japan had nothing to do with it
4.the victims of Pol Pot's regime - forgetting to mention that it was the terrible Vietnamese commies who put an end to Pol Pot's terror reign.
I cannot remember if they reckoned the Vietnamese losses during the USA war against North Vietnam, but it isn't unlikely.

So, STFU.

Is it a reading-comprehension problem?

Did you deliberately avoid what I actually wrote as some kind of tactic?

That you consider all memorials invalid and irrelevant is your perogative. You are free to disagree. It simply puts your prior comment in proper context.


That isn't what I said, as I suspect you know.

If you don't want to address points of debate, don't waste time in a debate forum.

I said memorials have no 'empirical' value.


The simple fact that you believe property can be forcefully confiscated and transferred without the use of government affirms that there is little point in continuing this debate. I simply don't believe in property-transfer fairies.

Again - not an argument I made. I said nothing about confiscation or transfer - that's your strawman. I won't defend it - because that little fight is all you.

At least attempt (pretend?) to be dealing with the arguments made.

Ad Hominem attacks is all you have? Gee - and I thought maybe you guys had more potential than that. I shouldn't be so disappointed I suppose. Once I demonstrated that your argument had no merit you really had nothing else. I'm just amazed how fast I got you there.


You shouldn't be disappointed. You've presented no coherent argument, supported by no evidence... and you've 'defended' it through a process of constructing strawmen.

There would be no point in being disappointed in the debate. You haven't joined it yet.

Fine. How about this one?

"Of course, simply because people should have ambition doesn't mean that they should receive more resources than other people."

Why thank you for your compliment.
I can't say that I was offended by your statements, so consider it dropped, for now.

OK. Fair enough. What do you thing the whole point of ambition is? A standard definition is; An eager, and sometimes an inordinate, desire for preferment, honor, superiority, power, or the attainment of something.

So therefore ambition is the desire to elevate oneself to something above everyone else. If everyone receives identical recompense for their labor then there is no room for ambition - at least so far as it pertains to work performance. Without elevation, compensation, preferment, etc. then ambition cannot exist. On the off chance that someone does excel there will become a inordinate demand for their product - resulting in an increase in its perceived value. An increase in its actual value is not very far behind.

So - as you can plainly see - ambition is incompatible with communism.

A standard definition is; An eager, and sometimes an inordinate, desire for preferment, honor, superiority, power, or the attainment of something.

So therefore ambition is the desire to elevate oneself to something above everyone else.

Philanthropic ambition is still ambition, even by your chosen definition - and doesn't equate to a 'desire to elevate oneself... above everyone else'.

Your argument is (visibly, and obviously) false.

No point discussing the specifics of what you posted - if your argument starts out with the assertion that 2+2 = 2, there's really no point in seeing what you think you're going to prove.

Yes, I bet it is. More nazi than conservative, maybe.

In Italy, this estimate was largely advertised by Berlusconi - that shitface.

I've seen the calculation behind the "100M killed by commies". It includes:
1.the Soviet military and civilian casualties during WW2, including those killed in the nazi lagers.
2.the victims of the famine in Ukraine (Holodmor)
3.the Chinese casualties during WW2 - like China was communist in WW2, and imperialistic Japan had nothing to do with it
4.the victims of Pol Pot's regime - forgetting to mention that it was the terrible Vietnamese commies who put an end to Pol Pot's terror reign.
I cannot remember if they reckoned the Vietnamese losses during the USA war against North Vietnam, but it isn't unlikely.

So, STFU.

So what would be your estimate?

Philanthropic ambition is still ambition, even by your chosen definition - and doesn't equate to a 'desire to elevate oneself... above everyone else'.

Your argument is (visibly, and obviously) false.

No point discussing the specifics of what you posted - if your argument starts out with the assertion that 2+2 = 2, there's really no point in seeing what you think you're going to prove.

Please describe what you call 'philanthropic ambition'. By the common definition of ambition you have created an oxymoron.

I believe that government protection of property rights is an invasion on the market. As I said, the market preexists the state, and all government action is market alteration.

Property, like everything else will be determined by the pricing functions of the market. If the owner of a company cannot afford to protect his company from his workers, it is only natural that they seize it.

I do not disagree that there would be a general idea of "ownership", nor do I argue that there will be ownership will be done away with. I only argue that the state does not have a good record of observing fair ownership, or at least what its people considers "fair". Workers who seize their employers property will not be thieves in their own mind, but liberators of what is theirs. Not only do I think that the state has no moral authority to say what is and isn't theirs, I believe that the market will answer that question with as little violence as the state.

But I think you will agree at this point that the state is a primary hindrance to "property-transfers", especially so to the have-nots.

No, I would not agree to that at all. In the most primitive examples you have some merit, but as a society develops and becomes more complex there must be a method of maintaining order. Order will not spontaniously exist. There needs to be standards and protocols - whoch is one of the core functions of government.

Markets are no more likely to self-normalize than traffic is. Though there are plenty of foolish traffic signals out there - if they were all removed it would be complete reckless chaos.
I would say that there are some states (such as North Korea) with dismal records of observing ownership. Other states, such as the US have a much better record.

As far as I know property can not experience 'freedom' or 'liberty'. You even said 'sieze' - which is not something one does to their own property. The idea of 'liberating' property is quite silly IMHO. It is funny to me that you use that term since in college that was the term we used to describe petty-theft. "
I didn't steal that six-pack - I liberated it!" You had no way of knowing it - but I thought I'd share that with you so maybe you could enjoy it also.

Please describe what you call 'philanthropic ambition'. By the common definition of ambition you have created an oxymoron.

A rudimentary grasp of the language clearly shows that this is clearly not true. I can't account for your inability to comprehend.

As a wise philosopher once said, "Bored now".

OK. Fair enough. What do you thing the whole point of ambition is? A standard definition is; An eager, and sometimes an inordinate, desire for preferment, honor, superiority, power, or the attainment of something.

So therefore ambition is the desire to elevate oneself to something above everyone else. If everyone receives identical recompense for their labor then there is no room for ambition - at least so far as it pertains to work performance. Without elevation, compensation, preferment, etc. then ambition cannot exist. On the off chance that someone does excel there will become a inordinate demand for their product - resulting in an increase in its perceived value. An increase in its actual value is not very far behind.

So - as you can plainly see - ambition is incompatible with communism.

Philanthropic ambition is still ambition, even by your chosen definition - and doesn't equate to a 'desire to elevate oneself... above everyone else'.

Your argument is (visibly, and obviously) false.

No point discussing the specifics of what you posted - if your argument starts out with the assertion that 2+2 = 2, there's really no point in seeing what you think you're going to prove.This is pretty much what I would have said.
Someone who has the ambition to cure cancer wants to attain something - cancer's cure. If they succeed in their ambition, they would likely receive additional honor and probably better treatment from other people, as well.

It is funny to me that you use that term since in college that was the term we used to describe petty-theft. "
I didn't steal that six-pack - I liberated it!" You had no way of knowing it - but I thought I'd share that with you so maybe you could enjoy it also.How much liberating did you do in college? ;)

A rudimentary grasp of the language clearly shows that this is clearly not true. I can't account for your inability to comprehend.

As a wise philosopher once said, "Bored now".

Ad hominems will not make your case for you. I repeat what I said before; you have, by standard definition, created an oxymoron with your term. You refusal to address that fact does not make it any less valid. Maybe you are bored - but it seems more like you are in over your head.

This is pretty much what I would have said.
Someone who has the ambition to cure cancer wants to attain something - cancer's cure. If they succeed in their ambition, they would likely receive additional honor and probably better treatment from other people, as well.


That is not an ambition - it is a goal. Someone may choose to forego other rewards in their single-minded pursuit o a noble goal - but that does not make them ambitious. In fact it is the opposite. They would be said to forego their ambitions in their drive to cure cancer.

How much liberating did you do in college? ;)

Oh we talked much more about liberating items than actually liberated any. We liberated a few signs, a keg, a dilapidated motorcycle, a few cocktail glasses, you know. I'm afraid that there won't be many songs sung of us by the oppressed utility items of Chico State anytime soon.

That is not an ambition - it is a goal. Someone may choose to forego other rewards in their single-minded pursuit o a noble goal - but that does not make them ambitious. In fact it is the opposite. They would be said to forego their ambitions in their drive to cure cancer.What's the difference between ambition and a goal?

its a stupid waste of land and money to have a victims of communism memorial in the united states.

such a memorial belongs in prague or warsaw or moscow, not washington dc.

Ahem...
We already have it in Prague...

As far as I know property can not experience 'freedom' or 'liberty'. You even said 'sieze' - which is not something one does to their own property. The idea of 'liberating' property is quite silly IMHO. It is funny to me that you use that term since in college that was the term we used to describe petty-theft. "
I didn't steal that six-pack - I liberated it!" You had no way of knowing it - but I thought I'd share that with you so maybe you could enjoy it also.

What is the origin of property, what is the justification for property?

What's the difference between ambition and a goal?

Really? Do you need me to define that for you? Am I your only source for word deinitions?

Here - let me do you a favor;

http://dictionary.reference.com/
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

You should bookmark those pages.

Meanwhile you are, once again, trying to construct an economy based on charity. As I said many many posts beore - charity is a noble pursuit but a shitty foundation for an economic system. If you have ever managed within a charitable system and a for-profit system you would know that recruiting, motivating and managing volunteers is considerably more challenging than doing so for employees... even when income is not an issue of the population pool from which you wish to draw volunteers (retired).

While there are some generous people willing to help full time with charitable endeavors - they are precious few. Most people would not do so without being compelled - which is, in essence, no longer volunteerism - it is slavery.

Your miracle-cure of cancer is a falacious argument. AFIK the researchers working towards this goal are all well compensated. There are many people quite willing to take financial risks in pursuit of financial rewards on this goal - just look at the biotech sector. Sorry, but the vast majority of people will not be willing to place progress towards any charitable goal ahead of their own personal ambitions. Some will find occasions where the two coinside - and that is great. But if they had to choose the vast majority would choose ambition. I am certain you will find exceptions, but not a rule which could demonstrate otherwise. It is a fallacy to think you can create an entire economic system based on exceptions instead of the rule.

So, to recap, ambition is the opposite of charity. Charity is good, but a shitty economic foundation. The vast majority of people are not willing to place charity over all personal ambition. Compulsive full-time charity would have more in common with slavery than with freedom. You attempt to demonstrate 'charitable ambition' has failed - both in practital terms (your attempt to invent someone working towards a noble goal without compensation) as well as in technical terms (the rules of grammar clearly make your term an oxymoron).

Really? Do you need me to define that for you? Am I your only source for word deinitions?Nope, but you are the only source for the definitions of words being used in the manner that you intend to use them.
But since you're letting me pick the definitions I want to use, I'll go with these:

goal - the result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end.
ambition - an earnest desire for some type of achievement or distinction, as power, honor, fame, or wealth, and the willingness to strive for its attainment

In short - you do not achieve goals without having the ambition to do so.

Meanwhile you are, once again, trying to construct an economy based on charity. Nope, I am simply reiterating that people may want to do things for reasons other than receiving financial compensation.
Some will find occasions where the two coinside - and that is great. But if they had to choose the vast majority would choose ambition. I am certain you will find exceptions, but not a rule which could demonstrate otherwise. It is a fallacy to think you can create an entire economic system based on exceptions instead of the rule.And if the economic system is made up of people who are (almost) solely the exceptions?

What is the origin of property, what is the justification for property?

Oh come on. You are trying to create a red-herring. This is an example of the logical fallacy of argument by question and it is a poor attempt at that.

If you want to debate the origin and justification of property - or any other terms - then have the courage to post it yourself and see if it stands up to the scruitiny of debate.

Ad hominems will not make your case for you. I repeat what I said before; you have, by standard definition, created an oxymoron with your term. You refusal to address that fact does not make it any less valid. Maybe you are bored - but it seems more like you are in over your head.

Stop wasting my time.

there was no ad hominem. I said that a rudimentary grasp of language clearly shows you to be wrong - if you take that as an ad hominem, then you must think you fail at the rudimentary grasp. That's your choice - it's not what i said.

Your refusal to address anything, and instead to prevaricate, is a clear indicator that you have nothing to bring to the table, and intend(ed) nothing more than to troll.

Oh come on. You are trying to create a red-herring. This is an example of the logical fallacy of argument by question and it is a poor attempt at that.

If you want to debate the origin and justification of property - or any other terms - then have the courage to post it yourself and see if it stands up to the scruitiny of debate.

I already did that in the propertarian threads.

However, it is imperative to discuss what and why ownership is justified, what seizure is inappropriate, and just what and why property is "fair" if we are to continue.

Otherwise, how can we distinguish the justice of the various state observations of ownership?